United Methodists need One Way Forward, not Three

History shows that when multiple options are debated at General Conference, everyone loses and the debate continues to the detriment of all.

Wait, is that a plural?

I was patient.

It was reported back in November 2017 that the Commission on A Way Forward (tasked with making a recommendation regarding unity and LGBTQ inclusion/exclusion for a special called session of General Conference in February 2019) was debating three Ways Forward for the United Methodist Church. I didn’t jump on it or write about it then because I said: “surely they would narrow it down in the coming months to a single Way Forward.”

I was wrong.

Instead, the most recent report from January 2018 indicates they are still moving forward with recommending three ways forward. They are making each into a full-fledged proposal suitable to be presented to the Bishops in the very near future (only 125 days from this writing to the deadline for GC legislation).

Here’s the problem: It really doesn’t matter how many plans they are floating. It doesn’t matter how many ideas they are getting feedback on and writing the theological rationale for.

All that matters is that the Commission on A Way Forward must put ONE recommended path up for a vote. One road, one direction.

Because if they don’t, if they float multiple paths, they risk ruin: a repetition of the same cycles that brought us to this point. And all their work will have been for naught. Again.

The First Way Forward, 1992

The first “Way Forward” failed because it recommended multiple paths to the General Conference.

The 1988 General Conference commissioned a study of homosexuality to report to the 1992 General Conference. The Study Committee’s 27 members studied science, theology, Scripture, and experience for three years (sound familiar?). Their final report outlined three things:

What the Church could responsibly teach about homosexuality (for example: “the basic human rights of lesbian and gay persons should be protected by the church”) and what it should not teach (ex: “gay and lesbian persons are prone to seduce or corrupt others”).

Recommendations for a structure for further study.

Specific polity changes regarding lesbian and gay persons.

The third point became the most problematic because the committee recommended TWO ways forward instead of one recommendation. Here’s the recommendation from the Circuit Rider pictured above:

Acknowledging that the entire study committee agreed on recommending a change in language… but did not all agree on the full text for such change, we recommended that petitions be submitted to the General Conference and that the following two alternative texts both be recommended to General Conference for some consideration:

“The present state of knowledge and insight in the biblical, theological, ethical, biological, psychological, and sociological fields does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the Church can responsibly maintain the condemnation of all homosexual practice.” [This was supported by 21 members]

“The present state of knowledge and insight in the biblical, theological, ethical, biological, psychological, and sociological fields does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the Church can alter its previously held position that we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” [Supported by 4 members]

You can guess what happened. Neither group’s recommendation prevailed in 1992, and four people upended an entire committee’s years of work. The only substantive change was affirmations of protecting secular rights of LGBTQ persons–which had consensus from the Study Committee.

Four people, less than 15% of the committee. That’s all it took because the Commission voted to put forth multiple approaches due to a lack of unanimity around one. And that lack of leadership ultimately sunk the committee’s work entirely.

The Known Unknown: The Minority Report

The reality is that there will inevitably be multiple plans debated at the special session of General Conference. There is no way to stop a second plan to be debated because of a peculiarity in General Conference Rules.

The known unknown for 2019 is the minority report/substitute legislation which will be inevitably put forth by those opposed to LGBTQ equality, most likely the Wesleyan Covenant Association but perhaps from the broader Renew and Reform coalition.

This is a predicted action because the pattern at previous General Conferences has been even when legislation restricting LGBTQ equality loses in committee, it endures in the form of a “minority report.” These reports are legislation written by people who voted against the majority-carried legislation. They are often quick affairs written around a table in the hours after a committee’s final vote.

One would think haphazardly-written minority legislation wouldn’t get anywhere. But one of the problems with the UMC’s version of Robert’s Rules is that minority reports receive votes BEFORE majority reports. So before the legislation that a majority of a committee supported is even debated, we first discuss whether to substitute the unvetted legislation that a handful of hold-outs wrote.

In 2008, the above is precisely what happened. A minority report was voted on before the majority compromise legislation, and as a result, our polity only was even more firmly restrictive towards LGBTQ persons than anything in the committee, but the same revision also removed our condemnation of marital rape out of our Social Principles.

So no matter what plan(s) AWF comes up with, a minority report (either written by the AWF dissenters themselves, or a substitute motion by WCA later) is guaranteed to come forward, which has historically been written outside of committee discernment by those most opposed to LGBTQ inclusion.

Prediction for 2019

There’s a reason why some are advocating for AWF to present multiple options: history has shown that when United Methodists are given a choice, they will always pick the one that is more discriminatory to LGBTQ people.

Even when a small group of people has studied a topic for years, if its very moderate recommendations share space with a proposal that requires people to divorce their same-gender spouses before seeking to serve as clergy, General Conference delegates will pick the latter.

So we’re nearing that critical moment for A Way Forward if they want a fair hearing to their work:

If AWF decides to offer multiple recommended paths to “let the people decide,” then they weaken the strength of any of them. The WCA will come forth with their plan. And progressives will perhaps have their plan to join the circus, then you end up with five competing proposals and disappointments, with the WCA being the strongest hand because of minority report process and floor demographics. This means that the AWF won’t even get a debate on the floor.

If AWF decides to offer one plan, if it is anything short of expulsion of progressives and forced divorce of LGBTQ persons, then there will be a rival plan from the Wesleyan Covenant Association. We know from decades of legislative work that when the Reform and Renewal Coalition loses in committee, they circumvent the majority via Robert’s Rules on the floor. But then there might (MIGHT) be just two plans. A strong AWF plan could survive a WCA end run—and get a fair debate on the floor.

The reality is that any WCA counterplan will always be in a better position. Minority reports are voted on before majority legislation, per our rules. That guarantees the AWF legislation will not get a vote on the floor of General Conference unless it is incredibly strong with a broad base of support to survive the minority report challenge. It won’t get there at all if there are Three Ways Forward.

In short, if AWF puts forth three “possible paths,” they will have abdicated their role as leaders for the denomination. By punting to the Bishops (who we know would not choose one of the three plans but would also punt to General Conference), they repeat the errors of the 1992 folly and will fail to resolve the best way forward.

Your turn

No matter what, we will debate at least two plans at General Conference. It’s up to A Way Forward Commission if they want the one they write to survive to the floor, or if they want years of work to be substituted and replaced before it even gets a fair hearing.

Comments

One of the original Study Committee members was Dr. David Seamands, a prominent Good News board member and Asbury Theological Seminary’s Dean of the Chapel (oddly enough, Asbury’s current Dean of the Chapel Rev. Jessica LaGrone is on AWF).

In the late 1980s, Seamands was named by Good News as one of “Ten Who Shaped the Decade,” for his firm stance against homosexual ordination and support of the sanctity of marriage, an award not revoked when his long-term extramarital affair was revealed in 2005.*

Time Magazine named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938, Stalin in 1939 and 1942, Nixon in 1971 and 1972, and Clinton in 1992 and 1998. (Lest you think I’m being sexist, “Man of the Year” was the name used until the Clinton years.) They weren’t receiving awards of any kind; Time was just stating the obvious: they were people with world-changing impact. Neither did Time rescind Hitler’s or Stalin’s status after the full extent of their presiding over horrendous brutality became known, nor Nixon’s or Clinton’s for their presidential scandals. (Under Time’s criteria, the brutality of the former two and the threatened and actual impeachment of the latter two only would have further cemented the validity of their choices.) Was Seamands “awarded” anything by Good News, or was he just named as a change-maker? His sins aren’t cheapened by recognition for other deeds any more than Time’s “Men of the Year” were. Nonetheless adultery, fornication, and other sexual sin (and our collective unwillingness to take it seriously) is a legitimate topic… just a red herring right here.

Time magazine and the Good News movement aren’t exactly equivalent, so presumably their criteria for making such selections aren’t either. This distinction doesn’t necessarily invalidate your comment, but at the same time, perhaps you should qualify your comparison somewhat by recognizing the differences.

My understanding of the process is that the Commission is not making the proposal; the Council of Bishops is. The Commission may be presenting three options to the Council of Bishops, and it is the Council of Bishops that will decide which, if any, of the three to put before the General Conference. Given that, I see no problem with the Commission offering three potential options–provided the Council does it’s job in leading–as requested by the General Conference–and offers a specific recommendation to the GC.

You are correct that the Bishops are making the proposal. My hope is to remove the tension from them by following the lead of the dedicated group that they have discerned the single best path forward, and the Bishops then are charged with persuading it to reality. Otherwise, asking them to discern (when they haven’t taken the dedicated time like AWF has) and then sell the rationale is a tall order for a group of potted plants.

So are you saying that the Council should just rubber stamp whatever AWF says? There are three “templates” being worked on by AWF. One is Traditionalist, which basically maintains the status quo. Another is Contextual, which throws the whole decision on the issue down to the conferences to handle it the way they want. The third is Branches, which allows like minded conferences or even smaller units of the connection to reorganize as they wish but still maintain a connection to the denominational “trunk”.

I assure you that the bishops themselves have flogged these templates a lot and their understanding thereof is much greater than it seems you are assuming.

I’m with Mike on this.
I expect the COB to give ONE recommendation. I don’t know that we will even see the other two offered to them by the commission.

Your point is well taken Jeremy, but one unified proposal from the Council actually matters a lot more than from the Comission. And it’s something that’s never happened before in our 40 years of debate on this, that the Bishops share their will.

Perhaps it is even better to know the Council had three robust options and they chose one to present to GC in the form of legislation.

Hi Amy, thanks for commenting. I feel a single recommendation from a Commission that has spent 2 years in discernment and study would have more authority than the bishops choosing one, including in that vote those who haven’t read the documents, reflections, or are actively opposed to the entire process (including two SCJ bishops who are on record as opposing AWF entirely).

I would love to be wrong and see a strong, concerted effort to lead by the Bishops. But as my next post reveals, that may be very difficult indeed. (More later)

When I read the article UMC released on the Jan. 2018 mtg outcome and got to the part where one or more groups were already drafting “their own legislation” (paraphrased), my first and remaining thought was “That’s the problem with everything going on in the church AND in US politics. There’s always one group that, when it doesn’t hear everyone agree it has the only possible answer and outcome, shuts its ears, puts on its blinders, and stands its ground. Its way or no way.”

I am losing hope that the UMC will ever be able to live up to “Open minds, open hearts, open doors,” and that there will always be a silent but titanium “except for” attached to the end of that motto.

It’s clear in the local rural congregations I’ve interacted with. It’s clear in one or more intra-denominational forums I follow/participate in. The people (congregation and pastors alike) will continue to cherry pick both the Bible and the doctrine, harvesting only those portions that best maintain their narrowest possible margins of personal discomfort regarding neighbors, strangers, and least among us.

It’s saddening and, to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, it must be infuriating.

I think you’re all right. AWF will report to the Council, and the Council will make a recommendation. But the Council may well do what Jeremy fears. So I hope we will all communicate with our Bishops how important it is for them to bring just one plan.

As others have noted, the WF folks are living up to their task, sifting possible approaches and teasing out the ‘what if’ elements and the intended-unintended consequences of each approach. I have a hunch the COB will adopt a version of option 3, giving the big tent the name of United Methodist but no longer as one denomination but a more general creature, with at least 2 denominations (one tilting center-left and the other center-right) and overseas churches free to align with either, or neither. By the way, what upended earlier efforts in committees formed to study sexuality was what many saw immediately as a weighted membership that tilted clearly away from the bulk of laity and clergy here and overseas. Thus efforts in 2008-2012-2016 all failed, decisively, not because conservatives rigged the process but because of perceptions that the deck was stacked before the hand was dealt. The Way Forward Commission creation seems to have worked hard to avoid that perception this time.

I would have thought that it was already abundantly clear that there were multiple ways we could possibly go forward. The lack of leadership is stunning, as is the wasted time, money, and energy spent to tell us what we already know

They have, I think, 1-2 more meetings. Hopefully, they can coalesce as their constituents start to wonder what they’ve been doing for 2 years when any of us could have named those three options on the back of a napkin 10 years ago.

This toxic issue which painfully divides us has hindered UMC in following its passion to be God’s helping hands in our world. It is time to diffuse this bomb – to neutralize its possible affect on the unity of our church. The Discipline must be changed to remove all reference to God’s cherished LGBTQ church community. A clause is then added to state that each Jurisdiction will decide guidelines regarding the LGBTQ community.

This will be in effect of drawing up a premarital agreement. Some things just can’t be combined so we develop an agreement. Placing the responsibility of serving God’s LGBTQ cherished community in the hands of each jurisdiction will allow the UMC to stay united and able to continue the great global effort that is so important to fulfilling God’s desire.

And, as with marital agreements, as time goes on we will probably find it less and less necessary to have that clause in the Discipline.

I completely agree that whatever happens with the three ways forward now, we need the bishops to present and persuasively advocate for just one.

It’s not just a matter of the peculiarities of our polity. It’s a matter of how we make choices.

When given fewer than three choices, we tend to make better choices and feel better about the choices we have made. What I’m talking about here is hardwired in our brains. We just can’t juggle more than three and make a good choice. We literally can’t. And with a group as large and complex as General Conference, it may be that three is even too many to consider (counting possible minority reports).

As you have pointed out, there’s likely to be at least a fourth choice brought in via one or more minority reports– so keeping the total number to three or fewer really requires the bishops to come with just one choice.

Here’s hoping our bishops don’t follow the common but false wisdom that giving people more choices is always a good thing. In fact, it’s almost always a bad thing. And in this case, it could be a catastrophic thing for the future of our Church.

Thank you, Jeremy. Both history and your analysis are informative. May we (and I mean all of us) “have eyes to see and ears to hear.” Our prayers, our conversations, our listening, and our relationships matter. Furthermore, may the Commission on the Way Forward discern a single path. May the Bishops confirm it and present it. May the General Conference delegates (and their conferences and constituencies) hear and see a way forward!

Jeremy your thoughts and all of the responses are helpful. I am also pessimistic about the outcome but continue to pray for God’s forbearance so that we may somehow have the scales removed from our eyes and see clearly that everyone is a beloved child of God.

There’s a school of management that sends leaders off to “better up” the choices that they advocate, so that each choice is the best it can be, with informed and sincere advocates. Then, the body chooses one. So maybe that’s what AWF is doing, and one plan will emerge. But that’s a route designed for small groups of people who trust each other, not General Conference.

Amen to that. General Conference is a large group of people comprised of 3 groups. Two trust each other to do the wrong thing and work hard to see that doesn’t happen and the third doesn’t seem to understand what all the fuss is about. They seem to think we should all get along, put aside our differences and do “real” ministry. Never mind the LGBTQI community that has been and us being hurt in the process. I’m a bit negative on the subject.

Jeremy. Great article. I would suggest that the desire on the part of AWF to present multiple proposals likely reflects the same inabilities and failures of the General Conference that created AWF in the first place.

I am a 75 year old pastor of a small, growing, vital reconciling congregation in a predominantly rural mountain area which contains a small university. We week to live out “Where all means ALL”. It is that commitment which has resulted in our growth and vitality. It is past time for the United Methodist Church, beginning with the Bishop’s Commission, to take a stand for welcoming, acceptance, and inclusion of all including LGBTQ persons in membership and leadership of the church. Kicking the can down the road won’t work. Especially in the present cultural climate of crisis, we are in a kairos moment for the UMC and her people.